But yeah, gotta make room for the future. Not just Puig, but prospect Joc Pederson too. And of course both Kemp and Crawford are fragile and Ethier is not going to maintain his durability forever. It makes total sense to move one.

To do it the Dodgers are going to clearly have to eat a lot of salary. But money is the least of the Dodgers’ concern.

I didn’t mean to imply they were going to give him away. I’m sure they will get some good value if they do move him. I was just surprised they would even consider moving a player that looked to be a contending MVP not that long ago. Just crazy how much things have changed is all.

All three of these guys missed significant time with injuries last season. It is probably a good idea for the Dodgers to have four every day outfielders. The odds of all of them being healthy at the same time are slim.

Hard to believe Pederson is ready to take over CF. He has only played one year at AA. That would put two 22 year old outfielders in the 2014 line-up, not exactly the “mentoring” type of situation Puig’s development needs.

And while Ethier performed better in CF than most projected, he isn’t the long-term answer defensive, and was disappointing offensively in 2013.

Crawford probably needs to show he can stay healthy for a whole season before he will attract much attention. He has gained the label of oft-injured but that isn’t exactly accurate, but the doubt still lingers.

That leaves Kemp. Acquiring him means 6 years of a $20 mil payout. But Kemp has only excelled for 2 years and the second year was injury shortened. If he is 100% healthy, one has to believe he could re-establish himself as the premier CF in the game, and at $20 mil that would be a bargain. (Sorry Cutch, gotta show more consistent power), and is the only player the Dodgers have who could really garner a significant return.

With all that in mind it is hard to believe anybody gets moved, and if it is Ethier, then he alone isn’t going to light up the phones in LA.

Actually McCutchen hasn’t ever put up numbers like Kemp did in 2011, and the first part of 2012. So it is hard to say that McCutchen is “better”.

Would I take Mccutchen today over Kemp, yeah, cause he is younger, and Kemp hasn’t shown the ability to come back from his shoulder issues.

McCutchen is probably the better defender, however, watching him on a more regular basis this year, I was a little disappointed in his overall play. Great range in the gaps, but he misjudged quite a few, and his base throwing choices leave a lot to be desired. But then Kemp isn’t Willie Mays in center either, and he probably projects as a right-fielder, and a darn good one soon.

paperlions - Nov 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM

It is really easy to say that McCutchen is better…by a lot. Kemp had one great year. One. You don’t get to ignore everything else. Kemp is also 29, which makes it unlikely he’ll get better.

McCutchen has a career 139 wRC+. Kemp was better than that in only 2 seasons 2011 and 2012 (only played 106 games). Kemp hasn’t approached a 139 wRC+ in any other season….and McCutchen’s best two years were his last 2….and he just turned 27. Despite being 2 years Younger, McCutchen has put up 7 more WAR as well.

It is no contest.

spudchukar - Nov 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

That depends on whether you believe 2011 and 2012 were an indication of things to come, the pinnacle, or outliers.

Personally, I believe Kemp was on his way to another 5 years of numbers like 2011. 2010 showed his promise, and then the bust out in 2011 and he was on his way to matching that in 2012 before the injury.

I’m a little uncomfortable defending Kemp, cause I really don’t care for him, but to be fair, in my mind the jury is still out on him.

And as I said my money would be on McCutchen, but if Kemp rebounds in 2014 and post numbers like he did in 2011, then the argument is real.

paperlions - Nov 8, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Again, Kemp is 29. That is the back edge of physical prime. He’s played parts of 8 years in the majors and performed like he did in 2011 exactly once. It was, by definition, an outlier.

From what I have read on Joc Pederson, he would be a September cup of coffee or injury callup this year. Most “experts” I have read believe he won’t be in LA for good until 2015 (sorry I don’t have links, on the wrong computer).

Kemp, Ethier, and Crawford are all 29-32 and are all overpaid. Kemp and Crawford both signed “historic” deals and Ethier at $17 million per year is the cheapest. If the Dodgers want to eat some salary, they’ll find some takers.

Weird to write this (kind of) but Kemp needs to show that he is at least 80% of what he was to be worth what Andrus is worth right now. I think the Rangers are thinking more along the lines of Stanton/Bautista in a larger deal for one of their shortstops.

If they’re going to pay them anyways.. Better to let the young guys develop in the minors and get regular at bats than bring them up, and put added pressure on them and possibly slow their development against higher quality pitching at an advanced level in my opinion.

I never understood the Ethier extension. At the time, I remember he was leading the NL RBI leader in May and I remember thinking what a good job his agent did for him. He perennially leads the league in AB’s against lefties- most of which come in the later innings. This is no accident.

This is a legacy of the Red Sox salary dump. By taking on a quarter billion in overpriced contracts, the Dodgers bailed out a team that could not have won the World Series without the salary relief they attained.

Gonzo was great for them. Beckett and Crawford were not. They still were paid over $40 million last year to play for LA. As for the Sox, a lot of talent could be replaced for a quarter billion. It infuriates me when people say “both sides benefited” from the deal. Not in its totality. The Sox were popping champagne, as the salary dump was the highlight of their miserable 2012 season.

All of baseball knows that the Dodgers will write a check to get this deal done. Both Ethier and Crawford could be moved if the Dodgers do so. Beckett is also available, I’m guessing.

Everyone assumes that the Dodgers will have to eat a lot of cash to trade any of these guys, but there’s always somebody out there who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and will think he’s “stealing” the player…..remember when everyone assumed that Vernon Wells and his horrible contract were untradeable ? Blue Jay & Angel fans sure do……

No assumption needed. They WILL have to eat a good portion of any of those contracts. Your citing of Vernon Wells is the perfect example. Of the $42M Wells is being paid in 13 and 14 the Angels are paying $29M, the Yanks only 13.

I would love to see Stanton in Blue, but it just doesn’t add up from either standpoint unless both sides went all in. The Marlins said that he is unavailable yet their front office doesn’t know witch way is up. Either would have to be included in the deal for the Dodgers to make a move, witch means that they would have to pay him the majority of his contract just for that tightwad to take him. Peterson would also likely be moved witch would go well for both squads because of his talent and affordability for the foreseeable future. A prospect like Urias and or Lee would most likely be included yet its tough to see the Dodgers making a deal that shakes everything up after just comming 2 games of their first pennant since 1988.